The War of Data, And Why I Am Lukewarm About Global Warming

a reply to: Yavanna

Will Happer is the most prominent one there, and yes, even he's wrong, but at least he's wrong in a more subtle way, because unlike most of the other skeptics, he isn't a completely unscientific ignoramus. But he's still wrong.

Happer:

Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.

There are two scientific issues:

* the 'increments of CO2 won't block more infrared because there's already a bunch of it already

* the additional climate feedforwards

Well, the first one is an understandable mistake from an atomic physicist, as he's going off his own experience about such behavior in the lab. The actual resolution wasn't actually recognized by scientists until they really started thinking about the problem (which is now decades ago). Today, we do understand this quite well (and it's wrong to say that the concentration of CO2 is now so high that the absorption is saturated overall) and everything is included properly in the radiative transfer codes which have been quantitatively validated by observations for a long time. It's not quite a simple freshman model however.

Please read this: www.realclimate.org...

The next point is another obvious one: of course there are major feedforwards which increase the effect from increasing CO2---water of course! This time, it is elementary meterology that overall, a warmer planet and troposphere (driven first by CO2) will absorb more water which is itself another greenhouse gas. It's impossible to ignore this. So, you have to include additional pieces, and yes the mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity from the people who do it for a living appear to be playing out correctly with increasing data.

originally posted by: Nathan-D

Firstly, CO2 isn't re-radiating as a blackbody necessarily.

Of course CO2 can't radiate as a blackbody. A blackbody absorbs all radiation.

Secondly, how does that lead to global cooling?

By my understanding, because CO2 is said to have a maximum radiating temperature of 193K and because 193K is cooler than 288K it would therefore have a cooling effect on the surface. Something that is colder than something else can obviously not heat it up. You know, like pouring cold water in a warm bath tub won't heat it up.

This isn't how the physics works. It doesn't make sense to talk about CO2 having a 'maximum radiating temperature of 193K'.

A blackbody (Maxwell-Planck power spectral distribution to be technical) isn't what's going on. Because of course that type of spectrum is entirely material independent! In CO2 and greenhouse gases it's a very non-blackbody, you have particular spectral distribution based on the specific quantum mechanics of the specific molecule.

Here's the actual picture: you DO have (almost exactly) blackbody Maxwell-Planck radiation coming in to the Earth as the primary driver---this radiation (since it is a blackbody spectrum) can be characterized by a temperature and that temperature is the photosphere of the Sun, the last place the radiation was in thermal equilibrium with the gas.

Then that radiation, with most of the power in the optical region, goes out and hits the earth, some of it is reflected immediately by clouds and surface, and other part is absorbed by the surface. This surface heats up and itself emits mostly blackbody radiation spectrum, but characterized by a lower temperature, 290K or whatever. Note that almost exactly the total radiation energy incoming to Earth from Sun (and negligible from moon & stars & cosmic background) is balanced by the total radiation emitted from surface & atmosphere and all reflections. The spectrum changes significantly.

Now you have thermal blackbody radiation going out from the surface, and in the absence of an atmosphere that's it, and you balance the emissivity and input & output and estimate the temperature (introductory thermodynamics class). You get a number much colder than the actual Earth. The difference is the atmosphere & greenhouse gases. Some of the infrared going up back from the surface is absorbed by the atoms and cause excited atomic & molecular transitions, which then decay and re-emit photons, but this time in all directions. So without atmosphere it goes all out, with atmosphere, some of it comes back a second time. And when that happens there is additional radiation hitting the surface vs the no atmosphere case, so you get even hotter and you do that until you get a new rough equilibrium. And now if you have more molecules re-emitting (remember NOT a blackbody here) because you have more greenhouse gases, then the temperature at the surface will be higher still, because you looking up, you see more shining in infrared than you would with less or no greenhouse molecules in the air.

The base thermal emissivity of the atmosphere is not as important as the particular atomic transition emission which is stronger.

The natural greenhouse effect is entirely undisputed and essential for life. Adding to the effect which is already known to be there can only increase it.

If you care about the thermodynamics, the the two relevant temperatures are 290K the surface temperature, and 5777 K the photosphere of the Sun. So clearly there's a thermodynamically feasible flow (entropy increasing) which can heat up the Earth. There is no important 'temperatre of the CO2' that matters. In a nutshell, more greenhouse gas, more radiation hitting the surface of the Earth, and that's it.

a reply to: Yavanna

Now all we do, swanne, I, and other members on this thread, is suggest that the same thing happen when the CO2, water vapor, and polluants layer thicken and densify: acting just like a cloud passing in front of the Sun, or the ashes from an erupted volcanoes blocking the Sun. It blocks the Sun's radiation, and cool down the atmosphere.

A): How is that pseudo-science mumble-jumble?

haze and ash and particulates in the atmosphere do block solar radiation and are cooling in most cases, as all climatologists agree.

CO2 and water vapor are transparent in the optical where most of the incoming solar radiation power lies. And that's the key---frequency distribution.

They're clear when the radiation comes in on optical, but after the Earth re-radiates in infrared, they absorb and re-emit. This is the greenhouse effect.

B): how hard is that to understand?
C): If it is hard for you guys to understand, you're the ones in need of a

It's rather pretentious to insult when you don't understand the zeroeth order subject and make assertions from it.

I'm far from an expert myself (i.e. somebody who publishes original research), but I do know the basic physical picture, and this can be readily found in any reliable introduction.

The pros understand far far far far far more. And if they correct me I will take it.

And frankly, your intelligence level is an insult if you don't even understand the two simple concept of "thick opaque layer = no radiation passing through",

Are you talking about volcanic particulates or greenhouse gases?

and that the Earth and Sun have a cycle of warming and cooling. Both are 101 geology and basic physics concept that you learn in highschool.

Which cycles? Which physics are you talking about? The primary one affecting climate is the Milankovitch cycles driven by orbital forcing, and that forcing peaked in about 6000-8000 BC and Earth has been on a slow cooling since then overall, until modern period when humans injected additional greenhouse gasses which used to be sequestered.

And now, you have to explain with data, and theory how these cycles explain CURRENT data in quantitative detail.
Hint; the pros have known about them for decades.

a reply to: mbkennel
I applaud your efforts. You are talking to a brick wall though. This is not about science and facts it's all about denial. People can even see the changes but the denial is still there.

This thread started with a long winded explanation of temperature by a (supposed) believer of the science into a skeptic. Although anybody can state "I was believer now I don't" in an attempt to con the reader into his credibility.

Thermometers....Jesus.... The Earth has three in your face thermometers:

1. Glaciers
2. Flora
3. Fauna.

All three are showing distinct warming. DUH!!!! This is why geologists, zoologists and botanists believe in the science if climatologists. The deniers ignore all the science from those three fields as well.

Oops I forgot about the medical profession as well and the change in infectious diseases due to climate change.

a reply to: jrod

"Pseudoscience"? "Script"? What the heck? This is your most ignorant attack yet, and I must say, I am impressed, for I knew not that you would be able to top the preceding attacks in terms of sheer logical fallacies.

Are you seriously telling me, with a straight face, that CO2 layer re-emitting IR radiations is "pseudoscience"?

Following that logic, then surely you agree that AGW is a hilarious farce, because it is based upon what you just called "pseudoscience".

Please do try and think this through instead of just throwing words around.



Okay, let me walk you through this once again. Do not worry, this time I will use simple words which you can understand so to avoid you getting confused.

Imagine the Earth. Around the Earth there's a layer of gases - a little something which we called the atmosphere. And around this atmosphere, there is space, in which satellites (and their IR sensors) are located.

According to AGW theory, electromagnetic radiation (simpler word: light) from the sun reaches Earth. This heats up the surface of the Earth, which reflects a considerable percentage of it back to space. Now, what's between space and Earth's surface? The atmosphere, which contains greehouse gases. So. The atmosphere traps the heat and re-emits it back to the surface. Like a greenhouse (this is the main reason why we don't all freeze to death at night). A member here has point out that satellites are recording a decline in spacebound IR emissions - this is interpreted by AGW as proof that the greenhouse gases are getting thicker, thus blocking spacebound more IR instead of letting them reach space.

But there are two points which you are ignoring - and this is not because they are "pseudoscience", but actually because you are missing some very basic science knowledge here. First off, the diminution in spacebound IR can also be caused by a diminution of output from the SOURCE of said IR emissions. Secondly, the greenhouse gases obey very basic physics mechanism: The IR radiation from Earth surface causes the greenhouse gas to energize - the electrons inside the atoms of these gases jump to excited states. In reality, when these atoms relax, and when there is a large number of them (such as is the case with the atmosphere), they re-emit IR in every directions - this means that half of it goes back towards Earth's surface (as predicted by AGW), but half of it also goes straight up to space (where the satellite is located, but now causing a discrepancy with observations). This means that if the globe truly is warming, the atmosphere should follow a proportional heating. And since the atmosphere emits half of the energy impared to it back to space, then the satellites should register an increase, and not a decline, in spacebound IR emissions.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

No, these are not thermometers. Blurring definitions is a poor defence, as is ad-hominem.

But hey. You want to talk about what glaciers have to say? Fine by me.

Below is the climate of Earth extending back to 400,000 years ago. Data comes from Vostok Ice Cores. It provides a very much bigger picture of this climate change issue.



GSU.edu

This next graph show that unlike the simplistic view which is promoted in popular media, in the real world there are also glaciers which are growing:





ESA.int


As for flora and fauna, there are concerns that they are experiencing a "holocene extinction".

en.m.wikipedia.org...

As you may know, extinctions are caused by a bunch of factors, such as human deforestation/hunting, volcanoes, asteroid impacts, and ice age. Yes, cold climate causes extinction: the cold damages plants and kills cold-blooded animals, leading to starvation all the way up the food chain.

Any other questions?

In CO2 and greenhouse gases it's a very non-blackbody, you have particular spectral distribution based on the specific quantum mechanics of the specific molecule.

To be honest I think my quoted-explanation of the idea was too simplistic and I probably have misunderstood his argument. So far the presentations of the CO2-cooling arguments I have seen have been too complicated, unclear and indefinite for me to be able to understand them. I agree that a body with a cooler temperature could increase the temperature of a body that is warmer. I think their basic argument essentially boils down to a colder body being unable to increase the temperature of a warmer body as that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I concur with Roy Spencer's view when he covered this topic a few years back, although I thought his initial way of describing it was misleading, since he described the cooler plate in his thought experiment as heating the warmer one by preventing it from losing heat so fast. But later he described it correctly (in my view) as occuring simply because the cooler body is also radiating energy from its surface which iminges on that of the warmer one. So hopefully that will automatically correct my earlier misleading explanation from people's minds.

Note that almost exactly the total radiation energy incoming to Earth from Sun is balanced by the total radiation emitted from surface atmosphere and all reflections.

Incoming radiation does not have to be balanced with the outgoing radiation. The total solar radiation impinging on Venus for example is 2,316W/sq.m and the planet is radiating at an astonishing 17,000W/sq.m.

originally posted by: mbkennel
Now you have thermal blackbody radiation going out from the surface, and in the absence of an atmosphere that's it, and you balance the emissivity and input & output and estimate the temperature (introductory thermodynamics class). You get a number much colder than the actual Earth. The difference is the atmosphere & greenhouse gases

Essentially what you're saying here in simple terms is that when we calculate the effective temperature of earth (with the Stefan-Boltzmann law) we get a temperature that is less than the observed temperature. The calculated effective temperature is 255K whereas the actual surface temperature is 288K. Hence we have a disparity of 33K that is apparently due to back-radiation from greenhouse gases. However demonstrating a dispairty between the earth's effective temperature and its observed temperature cannot be used as an argument that CO2 is significantly contributing to the 33K. As others have noted, water vapour accounts for about 96% of the atmospheric greenhouse by volume (according to NASA's Earth Fact Sheet) and molecule per molecule should be considered just as powerful absorber/emitter of radiation as CO2. Thus it seems that the vast majority of the 33K warming (i.e. 96%+) should be attributed to water vapour leaving 4% (i.e. 1.32C of 33C) for CO2. That simple calculation would appear to be at odds with HITRAN showing a warming of 8C from the entire CO2 greenhouse of 400ppmv.

originally posted by: swanne
This next graph show that unlike the simplistic view which is promoted in popular media, in the real world there are also glaciers which are growing:

ESA.int[/qu ote]

Ah, they do indeed grow? I heard that news a while ago, which perplexed me as the media kept saying glaciers were retreating, but couldn't find it anymore.
Great find!

originally posted by: swanne

But there are two points which you are ignoring - and this is not because they are "pseudoscience", but actually because you are missing some very basic science knowledge here. First off, the diminution in spacebound IR can also be caused by a diminution of output from the SOURCE of said IR emissions. Secondly, the greenhouse gases obey very basic physics mechanism: The IR radiation from Earth surface causes the greenhouse gas to energize - the electrons inside the atoms of these gases jump to excited states. In reality, when these atoms relax, and when there is a large number of them (such as is the case with the atmosphere), they re-emit IR in every directions - this means that half of it goes back towards Earth's surface (as predicted by AGW), but half of it also goes straight up to space (where the satellite is located, but now causing a discrepancy with observations).

And in absence of such greenhouse bands, more would have gone up.

This means that if the globe truly is warming, the atmosphere should follow a proportional heating. And since the atmosphere emits half of the energy impared to it back to space, then the satellites should register an increase, and not a decline, in spacebound IR emissions.

When people talk about a decline in spacebound IR emissions in this circumstance they are discussing the amount in the greenhouse bands.

From the space-side they are absorption, like looking at the spectral lines in a star---it's a blackbody continuum spectrum punctuated by declines at the atomic transitions. Yes the physics is the same, the atoms absorb and re-radiate isotropically. (Deeper spectral lines (less emission at the particular frequency) mean a higher concentration of that element in the appropriate layers of the star---this has been the keystone of observational stellar physics for decades.)

An increase in surface temperature would result in a shift in the spectral density function, and more of course emitted directly from the surface, but because of the increased greenhouse effect, more is absorbed and re-emitted on the way out so the net power is about the same (conservation of energy).

The total space-bound EM power stays nearly exactly equal of course--- 1366 W/m^2 perpendicular comes in, and just very slightly under 1366 W/m^2 comes out (except for the small differential causing increase in total heat content, which is 90%+ in the oceans).

The bigger difference is in the greenhouse bands. So the net effect of increasing greenhouse gases is an upward shift in distribution (corresponding to temperature increase) and a deeper decline in the atomically & molecularly interacting frequencies, with the net integrated power being nearly equal.

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: mbkennel
Now you have thermal blackbody radiation going out from the surface, and in the absence of an atmosphere that's it, and you balance the emissivity and input & output and estimate the temperature (introductory thermodynamics class). You get a number much colder than the actual Earth. The difference is the atmosphere & greenhouse gases

Essentially what you're saying here in simple terms is that when we calculate the effective temperature of earth (with the Stefan-Boltzmann law) we get a temperature that is less than the observed temperature. The calculated effective temperature is 255K whereas the actual surface temperature is 288K. Hence we have a disparity of 33K that is apparently due to back-radiation from greenhouse gases. However demonstrating a dispairty between the earth's effective temperature and its observed temperature cannot be used as an argument that CO2 is significantly contributing to the 33K. As others have noted, water vapour accounts for about 96% of the atmospheric greenhouse by volume (according to NASA's Earth Fact Sheet) and molecule per molecule should be considered just as powerful absorber/emitter of radiation as CO2. Thus it seems that the vast majority of the 33K warming (i.e. 96%+) should be attributed to water vapour leaving 4% (i.e. 1.32C of 33C) for CO2. That simple calculation would appear to be at odds with HITRAN showing a warming of 8C from the entire CO2 greenhouse of 400ppmv.

A simple calculation is wrong or misleading in this case. The following link is a decent description.

chriscolose.wordpress.com...

There are of course interactions all the way through, it isn't passively separably additive, and that's why you need radiative transfer models.

Some of the water is in the atmosphere because of warming from other long-lived greenhouse gases. And a hypothetical "world without CO2" computation doesn't give the influence, in the actual planet we live on, of additional greenhouse gases relative to our current atmosphere.

Also remember that CO2 is only slightly above half of anthropogenic influences (some are negative, particulate pollution and cleaning these up for justifiable health reasons will result in more warming).

originally posted by: Nathan-D

In CO2 and greenhouse gases it's a very non-blackbody, you have particular spectral distribution based on the specific quantum mechanics of the specific molecule.

To be honest I think my quoted-explanation of the idea was too simplistic and I probably have misunderstood his argument. So far the presentations of the CO2-cooling arguments I have seen have been too complicated, unclear and indefinite for me to be able to understand them.

You're not alone. That's because they're likely nonsense, as you're starting to recognize.

Note that almost exactly the total radiation energy incoming to Earth from Sun is balanced by the total radiation emitted from surface atmosphere and all reflections.

Incoming radiation does not have to be balanced with the outgoing radiation. The total solar radiation impinging on Venus for example is 2,316W/sq.m and the planet is radiating at an astonishing 17,000W/sq.m.

Is Venus powered by nuclear fusion?

a reply to: mbkennel

The following link is a decent description.

Thanks for the links you gave. I’m afraid I remain unconvinced by it. According to Lacis “We use the HITRAN database of atmospheric line information into absorption coefficient tables, and we use the vector doubling adding method as the basis and standard of reference for GCM multiple scattering treatment” and in the abstract of the Myhre paper that the article cited he also admits to uusing the HITRAN database. Radiative transfer codes (of which MODTRAN is another example) are supposed to combine basic laws of radiative physics with theoretical models of the ways radiation is thought to flow in the atmosphere to produce ‘simulations’ of energy-flows within the atmosphere and between the atmosphere and space. These inventions are a computer-nerd’s dream and a scientist’s nightmare because they are totally unamenable to objective third-party verification. When one goes to the ‘MODTRAN’ and ‘HITRAN’ Wikipedia page, one discovers that the models are owned by the US Air Force and its master-disc is held at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington. Now before one can go any further in verifying the truthfulness and accuracy of the model-simulation one will have to get a special security clearance from the US government to gain access to the disc and perform tests. This means we are in the position of just having to take Myre’s word for it that the HITRAN does what he says it does and that his theory based upon its mysterious workings is correct. Are there any non-model based papers demonstrating a satellite-measured radiative imbalance on CO2 absorption wavelengths? Another paper the article cites is Vogit 2009 that apparently determined the warming effect of CO2 via paleo-climate reconstructions and general circulation climate models. With this kind of modelling paleo-proxy data is turned into CO2 and temperature data that are then fed into the general circulation models in order to produce specific predictions about future climate states. But the fact remains that climate sensitivity is a concept-element in the climate models and is not directly observable in the paleo-proxy data which at best can give us only a correlation, so I think that element of the climate models is inevitably involved in the calculation of climate sensitivity, albeit on the basis of paleoclimate data. Also it contains the implicit assumption that CO2 is the known cause of global temperature-changes and that causal relationship has not been established. Sorry, but an awful lot of blind-faith seems to be going on here to me.

There are of course interactions all the way through, it isn't passively separably additive, and that's why you need radiative transfer models.

8K global warming from CO2 comprising only 4% of the total greenhouse by volume is inconsistent with the total greenhouse being responsible for only 33K of global warming overall. I think the estimates of which the article speak must be wrong. Why would the greenhouse effect of H2O increase to maintain an overall greenhouse factor of 1/3? That would imply an increase of the individual H2O molecules’ ability to absorb IR-radiation from the surface, wouldn’t it? But such an effect would be unprecedented in physics.

Some of the water is in the atmosphere because of warming from other long-lived greenhouse gases.

Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas that is produced by the evaporation of surface water and that evaporation occurs due to various causes, not just by the radiance from atmospheric CO2. It is therefore as much a primary forcing in its own right as CO2 and is not just a feedback to CO2. Indeed, it is not a direct feedback to CO2 at all, since its mean atmospheric concentration is affected by other factors besides CO2 as well, such as condensation rates, precipitation rates, air-temperature, air-pressure and so on.

As you're starting to recognize.

I have always agreed that increasing CO2 will cause warming and just because I have not understood them does not mean I think their arguments must be nonsense. However I did mention in my first post that I was not a proponent of the theory and was simply throwing it out there for discussion.

Is Venus powered by nuclear fusion?

If we try to imagine what alternative sources of that amount of power at the Venus’ surface there might be, what can you think of? The heat emanating from the interior? Adiabatic heating? Volcanism? Adiabatic heating seems like the most likely explanation to me as I explain on my blog here: chipstero7.blogspot.co.uk...

A simple calculation is wrong or misleading in this case

My argument (which was first proposed in this thread by Yavanna) is simple, and you have not shown that it is wrong and you have no grounds for calling it misleading. It meets the two standard criteria of Occam’s Razor, namely necessity and sufficiency, to prove my claim. And my assumptions are not misleading. They are standard basic assumptions that the climate science community claims to have accepted commonly already. My assumptions are stated explicitly in my argument but let me remind readers of what they are again. 1. CO2 currently comprises less 4% (by volume) of the whole atmospheric greenhouse with other greenhouse gases such as methane existing in negligible trance amounts. 2. The overall atmospheric greenhouse is responsible for raising the mean global temperature by 33K above the earth’s black-body temperature. Water vapour is thought to be more potent than CO2 as it absorbs radiation over a far wider energy-wave spectrum but let us pretend for purposes of calculation that the greenhouse potencies of all of the gases are equal. Then the maximum possible greenhouse effect of 4% CO2 in relation to that of the whole greenhouse would be 4% of about 33K and that comes out 1.2K. Now this 1.2K is a small amount of global warming in itself, but it is only an estimate of the maximum amount of warming by the atmospheric CO2 that is theoretically possible and this estimate is based on two unrealistically favorable assumptions, namely: i. That CO2’s greenhouse potency is as great as that of each of the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere when we know it is not; ii. That increments of heat-energy due to the greenhouse effect produce corresponding increments of the global mean temperature in a linear manner when we know full well that they do not and that they produce temperature increments in proportion to their fourth root power in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. For these two reasons the actual amount of global warming produced by the entire atmospheric CO2 is bound to be considerably less than 1.2K, although we cannot estimate its true value with the information at hand. Nevertheless, 1.2K is of course still a drastically smaller amount of global warming than the 8K that the computer models assert that atmospheric CO2 is responsible.

a reply to: swanne

And since the atmosphere emits half of the energy impared to it back to space, then the satellites should register an increase, and not a decline, in spacebound IR emissions

If you are talking specifically about the radiative imbalance on CO2 absorption wavelengths, not the radiative imbalance of the whole spectrum, then I would think that the amount of radiation emitted to space on CO2 absorption wavelengths would have to increase by simple consequence of the fact that all bodies radiate in all directions. Hence if CO2 is emitting more radiation on its wavelengths to the surface, then by definition, it must also be doing the same to space.

a reply to: mbkennel

The bigger difference is in the greenhouse bands. So the net effect of increasing greenhouse gases is an upward shift in distribution (corresponding to temperature increase) and a deeper decline in the atomically & molecularly interacting frequencies, with the net integrated power being nearly equal.

Are you sure you’re not trying to baffle Swane with bullsh@t?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Yavanna

Care to provide links that back up your alphabet list of claims?

Swanne and I have been given you guys links and graphs since the last seven pages, links and graphs from scientists themselves.

Also, when the subject interest you, its called "searching". That is what Google is for. We have busy lives; searching for links and graphs to give them to you, only for them to be refuted by you, even though its data from scientists, just like AGW's data, is a waste of time after 7 pages.
I can assure you, you will find all the information I have provided in Google. It just asks of you to make those searches, just as we made them for you.
When a subject interest me, I do the search myself, I don't waste time of the other begging for links. I understand the other might have a busy life, and can't always ask him/her to take on his/her sleep time or lunches to make the same searches that I can perfectly make myself, with those little things called brain, hands, computer, keyboard, and Google.

Also CO2 does not form clouds or haze like water vapor or sulfur ash like we would see from a volcano.

The interactions between particles and sun radiation is the same. You will find many scientists, climatologists, and geologists disagreeing with you there.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

This is not about science and facts it's all about denial. People can even see the changes but the denial is still there.

If you look closer enough to the debate, you will find that none of us are denying climate change or the CO2 rising level affecting the Earth. What we are debating upon, is to which side does it really affect, and at what rate.
You do know that global cooling is as catastrophic than global warming, right? Even if the answer reveals to be not AGW but global cooling, as about 500 scientists believe through the data they collected, its still as catastrophic than AGW.
We must still stop pollution and CO2 levels from rising. We don't deny this at all. We only try to explore the other possibilities to make a better plan at stopping catastrophes, whichever side it will take, warming or cooling.
And we get insulted for exploring other theories. I don't see how that is either worth of admiration or scientific in approach and belief.

1.2K should be 1.32K.

Also the part about H2O in my post above should read CO2 and 1/4 instead.

I dare say there are a few other mistakes. I rushed it.

I forgot to mention the very important non-appearance of the tropospheric hotspot also as that disproves the positive feedback water vapour theory.

a reply to: Yavanna
Short post because I am using a cell phone. Also most links are to blogs and opinion pieces and the graphs you presented provide nothing that contradicts the AGW theory.

Mbkennel answered those questions you have and as usual is a voice of science and logic in this discussion.

Do you really believe CO2 can form a haze that will cause cooling? I don't even think the quacks that the heartland institute will make a claim like that.

originally posted by: Yavanna

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Yavanna

Care to provide links that back up your alphabet list of claims?

Swanne and I have been given you guys links and graphs since the last seven pages, links and graphs from scientists themselves.

Yes, I debunked every single one from both of you and y'all just end up ignoring me afterwards.

Debunking of Swanne's links:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No responses to any of that.

Debunking of your links:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A response, but no further links then promptly stopped responsding.